Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it(baekdal.com)
baekdal.com
Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it
http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/apple-never-designed-the-ipad-they-undesigned-it/
240 comments
The cable is a PDMI cable, an industry standard developed by ANSI/CEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Associatio... ), my Dell Streak comes with an identical one too, as do certain Android media players (Slacker G2).
Info on PDMI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI Image of Dell Streak PDMI: http://www.images.technologyking.co.uk/25032011/hgggg.jpg
Info on PDMI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI Image of Dell Streak PDMI: http://www.images.technologyking.co.uk/25032011/hgggg.jpg
Here's the Dell Streak's pin configuration:
http://www.streaksmart.com/2010/07/dell-streak-doesnt-use-sa...
That's not the same as either Apple's or Samsung's. Samsung's connection is a mirrored version of Apple's. Here's a comparison of the 3 device connectors: http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
It's pretty hard to say that Samsung is "just following the standard" if it's different than Dell's connector.
That's not the same as either Apple's or Samsung's. Samsung's connection is a mirrored version of Apple's. Here's a comparison of the 3 device connectors: http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
It's pretty hard to say that Samsung is "just following the standard" if it's different than Dell's connector.
It occurs to me there is a strong incentive to use a PDMI interface- many cars, devices and accessories that interface with the iPod use that interface. Is it IP theft to hook into devices that normally hook into the iPod?
Indeed, that does address the pin configuration. What about the connector housing and strain relief, though? Hell, Apple's strain relief sucks – you need a pack of Sugru to rescue older dock connector cables. You don't copy that for practical reasons, right? The specimens you linked look very different from Samsung's dubiously unique interpretation.
The housing and strain relief are both different. It's the same type of connector on both ends so there is no way they won't end up looking similar.
From the first paragraph of the wiki page:
"It is designed as an alternative to the iPod interface which was used exclusively by Apple Inc."
The connector looks like an attempt to confuse people with the iPod peripherals and visual branding. Why that exact shape?
"It is designed as an alternative to the iPod interface which was used exclusively by Apple Inc."
The connector looks like an attempt to confuse people with the iPod peripherals and visual branding. Why that exact shape?
I imagine PDMI came about because it's frankly a pretty good connector. I love me some USB, but USB aside it is one of the most feature-ful and reasonable portable device connectors I've known.
As for the shape of Samsung's plug, form follows function. USB plugs all mostly look the same too.
As for the shape of Samsung's plug, form follows function. USB plugs all mostly look the same too.
It looks like PDMI is just the Apple Dock Connector standardized.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Facts that form a good starting point for understanding that Samsung's defense is not open and shut:
(1) Some copying is legal.
(2) Some copying is illegal.
(3) The line between (1) and (2) is not clearly drawn.
(4) Many companies copy Apple -- some legally and some illegally.
(5) Samsung copies Apple a lot closer then most other mainstream (read: non-pirate) companies do.
...
The problem with Samsung is why (5)?
To say "that's the only way to design something" flies in the face of (4). Why can't Samsung differentiate their tablet as well as (say) the HTC Flyer?
They appear to be interested in looking as identical to Apple's products as possible -- to the point where Samsung lawyers can't even quickly say which is which when a judge holds both products over their head. When the copying is this blatant and close, accusations of piracy are unavoidable.
I'm not saying Samsung's guilty of crossing the line between legal and illegal - that's what experts and lawyers and judges are paid to do. But I'm saying they are knowingly closer to the line then most companies are comfortable being and that it's silly to casually dismiss the idea that Samsung could have infringed Apple's IP (as people here frequently do).
(1) Some copying is legal.
(2) Some copying is illegal.
(3) The line between (1) and (2) is not clearly drawn.
(4) Many companies copy Apple -- some legally and some illegally.
(5) Samsung copies Apple a lot closer then most other mainstream (read: non-pirate) companies do.
...
The problem with Samsung is why (5)?
To say "that's the only way to design something" flies in the face of (4). Why can't Samsung differentiate their tablet as well as (say) the HTC Flyer?
They appear to be interested in looking as identical to Apple's products as possible -- to the point where Samsung lawyers can't even quickly say which is which when a judge holds both products over their head. When the copying is this blatant and close, accusations of piracy are unavoidable.
I'm not saying Samsung's guilty of crossing the line between legal and illegal - that's what experts and lawyers and judges are paid to do. But I'm saying they are knowingly closer to the line then most companies are comfortable being and that it's silly to casually dismiss the idea that Samsung could have infringed Apple's IP (as people here frequently do).
Well said. I'll add: (5) seems natural if (and we certainly don't have to) we also believe a few other facts:
(6) As this article says, Apple [un]designs things by "creating the simplest shape possible".
(7) This is a good thing. It leads in very many cases to the best products.
(8) Samsung, more than others, recognizes (7) and so follows Apple's lead.
If so, then the only way for Samsung to be legal, if (5) is past the line of acceptability, is to intentionally put effort into making worse products.
Which would, at the very least, make a Samsung designer's job description an interesting one.
(6) As this article says, Apple [un]designs things by "creating the simplest shape possible".
(7) This is a good thing. It leads in very many cases to the best products.
(8) Samsung, more than others, recognizes (7) and so follows Apple's lead.
If so, then the only way for Samsung to be legal, if (5) is past the line of acceptability, is to intentionally put effort into making worse products.
Which would, at the very least, make a Samsung designer's job description an interesting one.
This reminds me of engineers trying to work around patents. I spoke to a guy who manufactures flexible guide posts which can flex in any 360 direction. He has a patent on it, and the flexible part is cylindrical. He said competitors work around the patent by making square shaped posts. Obviously this is not the most natural shape if you were to want to flex in all directions.
http://1.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/sam...
Here this is a nice photo frame samsung made in 2006, interestingly no one sued anyone for it. Apple is just full of bullshit and does everything to halt sales of their competitor.
Here this is a nice photo frame samsung made in 2006, interestingly no one sued anyone for it. Apple is just full of bullshit and does everything to halt sales of their competitor.
Why would somebody sue Samsung or Samsung sue somebody by a digital photo frame. It's a photo frame!!
Or you are saying that the Ipad copied the samsung photo frame design, and samsung should sue apple for it?
Or you are saying that the Ipad copied the samsung photo frame design, and samsung should sue apple for it?
It's a photo frame, and their tablet resembles that photo frame (a legacy Samsung product that predates the iPad) at least as much as it resembles the iPad. The claim is that Apple's suit is spurious.
> Apple is just full of bullshit
What a compelling argument!
What a compelling argument!
Read my comment again - in full.
[deleted]
Apple didn't build a freaking photo-frame..they built a tablet computer...
The functionality is not at question here, the look and feel of the item is. This, hence, is a perfectly valid claim.
This is akin to that "everything that can be invented, has been invented" quote, and equally lacking in foresight.
The reason many competitor products look similar or worse than apple products, is because we have unimaginative industrial designers that think like this blogger.
The next generation of apple tablets will find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors, despite having already created 'the perfect design'.
The reason many competitor products look similar or worse than apple products, is because we have unimaginative industrial designers that think like this blogger.
The next generation of apple tablets will find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors, despite having already created 'the perfect design'.
I have a Galaxy Tab, too and there is no USB connector. I'm quite sure of this because I had to buy a $20 add-on that hackishly turns the PDMI port into a USB port and looks freakishly ugly while doing so. PDMI is, of course, an industry standard.
I really wish they had put an actual USB port on the thing, or at least a place to put a micro SD card. But if anyone is copying Apple's whole "we don't believe in strain relief" nonsense, I really do hope they stop that. Damaged cables are not beautiful. They make the device look like junk.
I really wish they had put an actual USB port on the thing, or at least a place to put a micro SD card. But if anyone is copying Apple's whole "we don't believe in strain relief" nonsense, I really do hope they stop that. Damaged cables are not beautiful. They make the device look like junk.
It's a different color, which, in Apple's view, is good enough of differentiation.
But I do wish it was a more standard USB port, like the micro one that Amazon's adopted.
But I do wish it was a more standard USB port, like the micro one that Amazon's adopted.
I know at least one Android tablet that has an extra power connector because apparently it's USB micro connector can not provide sufficient power.
Maybe the Apple USB connector is not even protected design and Samsung was allowed to use it? Is it actually compatible to the Apple connector.
Once you go for a wider connector, perhaps again there are not that many options if you want to be thin. It has to be some kind of slot of some length. Presumably the amount of pins is fixed, and you want a minimum length per pin for good connectivity? (I am just guessing, don't know much about electronics).
Anyway, do you feel offended by a slot in a tablet? Does it really matter that much?
Maybe the Apple USB connector is not even protected design and Samsung was allowed to use it? Is it actually compatible to the Apple connector.
Once you go for a wider connector, perhaps again there are not that many options if you want to be thin. It has to be some kind of slot of some length. Presumably the amount of pins is fixed, and you want a minimum length per pin for good connectivity? (I am just guessing, don't know much about electronics).
Anyway, do you feel offended by a slot in a tablet? Does it really matter that much?
> Anyway, do you feel offended by a slot in a tablet? Does it really matter that much?
I'm offended that anyone can look at the situation and argue that Samsung arrived at their designs independently.
I'm offended that anyone can look at the situation and argue that Samsung arrived at their designs independently.
No one arrives at any design independently. Design decisions are always informed by what's been proven successful, whether be the current designer or their competitors.
Apple has of course influenced the market. The question is whether Apple has the right to be only company in the market to sell certain things, like rectangular touchscreen tablet devices. I don't think they have that right.
Apple has of course influenced the market. The question is whether Apple has the right to be only company in the market to sell certain things, like rectangular touchscreen tablet devices. I don't think they have that right.
I'm offended that anybody can look at the situation and argue Apple designed the iPad independently.
Would it feel better for you if the slot was only 19mm wide instead of 21?
[deleted]
How about the MILLIONS of apple USB cables out there by iphone and ipad and ipod users where these same users may buy a samsung device and still be able to use their cables.
I have ~10 apple USB cables. I keep 1 in my backpack, 1 in the car, 1 in the bedroom, I have a 6' long one I bought from deal extreme and several others in various places.
I have an iPad - but I'm open to other devices and I hate it when I cant usethe cables I have.
(I have about 8 dell power adapters for the same reasons)
I have ~10 apple USB cables. I keep 1 in my backpack, 1 in the car, 1 in the bedroom, I have a 6' long one I bought from deal extreme and several others in various places.
I have an iPad - but I'm open to other devices and I hate it when I cant usethe cables I have.
(I have about 8 dell power adapters for the same reasons)
If you stop buying Apple products all your USB cables will look the same for all devices.
Honestly, I have never bought an apple product.
I am very good about my employers buying me requisite devices for work. I have had the iphone since launch and have gone through 12 of them (in all the various models) as I tend to drop them a lot.
The iPad was a gift.
I have not bought a phone or computer for myself in ~10 years.
I am very good about my employers buying me requisite devices for work. I have had the iphone since launch and have gone through 12 of them (in all the various models) as I tend to drop them a lot.
The iPad was a gift.
I have not bought a phone or computer for myself in ~10 years.
A wide plug is less likely to get jostled out by moving the cord sideways back and forth. It's fairly common sense.
And a width of 21mm is the only configuration that could satisfy this requirement?
Precisely that, and no other? I don't mean to be flip, but it beggars belief to say that this is some sort of platonic form of tablet connector, especially given that the connector originated on the iPod in 2003, and existed not for stability, but for thinness, and to provide additional pins for accessories in a larger Apple-specific ecosystem. It was designed with a purpose, no part of which beyond thinness obtains when applied to a non-Apple device.
Precisely that, and no other? I don't mean to be flip, but it beggars belief to say that this is some sort of platonic form of tablet connector, especially given that the connector originated on the iPod in 2003, and existed not for stability, but for thinness, and to provide additional pins for accessories in a larger Apple-specific ecosystem. It was designed with a purpose, no part of which beyond thinness obtains when applied to a non-Apple device.
I am sure they did not copy the 21mm because it looks the best. There must be some other reason.
> I am sure they did not copy the 21mm because it looks the best. There must be some other reason.
We agree. That reason being, it looks like Apple's, and consumers love that.
We agree. That reason being, it looks like Apple's, and consumers love that.
No, the reason it's that wide is because that's how wide PDMI cables are. They are all about the same width. It's a standard.
It's probably because these are easy to buy. The people making $1 iPod replacement cables must buy them somewhere, after all.
I have a Sansa music player that uses an iPod cable but with the wires hooked up differently for no apparent reason. It seems to be a pretty common thing.
I have a Sansa music player that uses an iPod cable but with the wires hooked up differently for no apparent reason. It seems to be a pretty common thing.
Maybe the component supplier put in a cheaper bid if the part sizes were identical?
[deleted]
Do you really think that, without the USB connector being nearly identical, that Apple wouldn't be taking them to court?
I had posted this on another thread too, however, this discussion around Samsung's design "independence" is ridiculous. Unless one is a lawyer, it's fairly obvious that they ripped off Apple's designs, take a look at this link:http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a
The point is that if they rip off the cable and port, which is easy to detect, it's hard to believe that they stopped there when taking inspiration from the most successful product in the space.
USB and PDMI are standard connectors. What part don't you understand? And, btw, how do you rip off the cable?
As cube13 mentioned, eh, not so much, there:
http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
So why aren't we reading articles saying 'Sales of Samsung USB cables banned' rather than 'Sales of Samsung Tablets banned'?
I agree that the USB cable is rather a smoking gun - but it's the only one. If that's what's wrong, attack that. Don't go and use that to argue about everything else.
I agree that the USB cable is rather a smoking gun - but it's the only one. If that's what's wrong, attack that. Don't go and use that to argue about everything else.
>So why aren't we reading articles saying 'Sales of Samsung USB cables banned'
This almost borders on the deliberately obtuse, here.
The USB cable doesn't exist in isolation, a decorative piece in the packaging, to be displayed on your desk as the proud owner of a Samsung product.
The cable plugs into the tablets Samsung is selling. Only those tablets, no others. The cables serve no other use. These tablets have a port on the bottom that has been specifically to designed to fit these and only these cables. So this pretty blatantly lifted design is integral to the tablet. Not just the cable.
Which is the smoke in the gun barrel. It's the obvious signal that says Samsung was looking in a very specific, singular direction when they made their design decisions.
But let's go with your thinking, here:
If such a ban prevailed, and those cables were forbidden from distribution anywhere on earth, even inside the box of a Samsung tablet, the tablet would not function. Couldn't charge.
So it would be an effective short term remedy. And, there again, your smoking gun. The most critical, non-negotiable piece of the entire device was lifted wholesale from Apple.
This almost borders on the deliberately obtuse, here.
The USB cable doesn't exist in isolation, a decorative piece in the packaging, to be displayed on your desk as the proud owner of a Samsung product.
The cable plugs into the tablets Samsung is selling. Only those tablets, no others. The cables serve no other use. These tablets have a port on the bottom that has been specifically to designed to fit these and only these cables. So this pretty blatantly lifted design is integral to the tablet. Not just the cable.
Which is the smoke in the gun barrel. It's the obvious signal that says Samsung was looking in a very specific, singular direction when they made their design decisions.
But let's go with your thinking, here:
If such a ban prevailed, and those cables were forbidden from distribution anywhere on earth, even inside the box of a Samsung tablet, the tablet would not function. Couldn't charge.
So it would be an effective short term remedy. And, there again, your smoking gun. The most critical, non-negotiable piece of the entire device was lifted wholesale from Apple.
It's an ANSI-standard PDMI cable. David McLauchlan of Microsoft chaired the PDMI committee.
Anyone copying the no strain relief cables should be shot, though. I appear to have lost the charging cable for my Galaxy Tab, so I can't check that right now.
EDIT: Found them. The cables that came with my Tab have strain relievers. They're hard to see, but they're there. Point for Samsung.
Anyone copying the no strain relief cables should be shot, though. I appear to have lost the charging cable for my Galaxy Tab, so I can't check that right now.
EDIT: Found them. The cables that came with my Tab have strain relievers. They're hard to see, but they're there. Point for Samsung.
Or they could design a new cable?
Apple are asking them to change a whole load of things - colour, size, proportionality etc. Why not just ask them to change the cable?
Let's put it the other way - if someone came out and said they had a patent on some part of Apple's power cable - be it a design patent or a technology one - would you say that Apple would have to stop selling iPads? Or just stop selling those particular cables, and design around it?
For a similar case, look at the recent Doom 3 source code release. John Carmack had to remove the code for Carmack's Reverse because it infringed a Creative Labs patent (which had been licensed specifically to id, not to outside developers). He didn't have to remove the whole code base, just the one bit that actually infringed.
Apple are asking them to change a whole load of things - colour, size, proportionality etc. Why not just ask them to change the cable?
Let's put it the other way - if someone came out and said they had a patent on some part of Apple's power cable - be it a design patent or a technology one - would you say that Apple would have to stop selling iPads? Or just stop selling those particular cables, and design around it?
For a similar case, look at the recent Doom 3 source code release. John Carmack had to remove the code for Carmack's Reverse because it infringed a Creative Labs patent (which had been licensed specifically to id, not to outside developers). He didn't have to remove the whole code base, just the one bit that actually infringed.
> Or they could design a new cable?
And a new port. Given the scenario where that cable is banned, they'd need to replace the port on every existing tablet they've sold. This is a linchpin.
The point is that this isn't something that exists in isolation. This is evidence that suggests Samsung is comfortable ripping off Apple, and did so. Pretty blatantly. And so if they did it here, you think they didn't do it elsewhere in their industrial design?
And a new port. Given the scenario where that cable is banned, they'd need to replace the port on every existing tablet they've sold. This is a linchpin.
The point is that this isn't something that exists in isolation. This is evidence that suggests Samsung is comfortable ripping off Apple, and did so. Pretty blatantly. And so if they did it here, you think they didn't do it elsewhere in their industrial design?
I hate mini-usb, for some reason the fit has never been good for me. I'm fine with Apple's USB connector being the standard fit for our mobile devices. And this means if someone has a Samsung tablet at their house, I can charge my iPad.
> if someone has a Samsung tablet at their house, I can charge my iPad.
Not so much – the cable isn't actually compatible. It just looks like it should be.
Not so much – the cable isn't actually compatible. It just looks like it should be.
This is even worse... it's deceptive. Of course they couldn't make it compatible without paying Apple (who would probably wouldn't have allowed it without egregious licensing fees), but if it looks like it works and doesn't, that's just doing their end-users a disservice.
This article is fraught with frustratingly-incorrect use of the word "design". The author continually mistakes "design" for visual appearance.
"Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content itself."
That's exactly what design is: finding the problems that need to be solved and devising a solution that solves them. One that respects usability, readability, comfort, etc.
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
Wrong again.
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. The width of the margin is an engineering problem with only one solution."
And again. It is a design decision.
"Again, none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability."
Because usability has nothing to do with design... nope.
"What has happened here is that Samsung has been forced to add design elements that don't need to be there."
Here you mean "visual elements" not "design elements".
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. This is an engineering constraint." (talking about the batteries)
Still wrong, it has something to do with design. This however is the only one that gets close to its claim.
The author makes a lot of interesting points, but he clearly doesn't know what "design" means.
"Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content itself."
That's exactly what design is: finding the problems that need to be solved and devising a solution that solves them. One that respects usability, readability, comfort, etc.
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
Wrong again.
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. The width of the margin is an engineering problem with only one solution."
And again. It is a design decision.
"Again, none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability."
Because usability has nothing to do with design... nope.
"What has happened here is that Samsung has been forced to add design elements that don't need to be there."
Here you mean "visual elements" not "design elements".
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. This is an engineering constraint." (talking about the batteries)
Still wrong, it has something to do with design. This however is the only one that gets close to its claim.
The author makes a lot of interesting points, but he clearly doesn't know what "design" means.
I was going to post more or less the same thing. I'd add that if you read any book on software engineering you will see the word "design" used repeatedly, more often than not referring to the process of solving a problem. This is also true of other engineering textbooks. Design is about solving problems therefore design is engineering.
I'm furious over the use of the 'word' "undesign." THEY'RE DESTROYING MY LANGUAGE.
"un" is a productive negation prefix. That means that it can freely be used just about anywhere it makes lexical sense to use it; there is no list of approved verbs with which it may be used. Undesign is a perfectly valid word (and preferable to alternatives like dedesign in terms of aestheitics). Dictionaries cannot be expected to contain every variant of a word created by valid and systematic use of affixes.
The author invested quite some time to make his point, however, I disagree.
First of all, if this is the only possible way for a tablet to look, why did all the other Microsoft tablets up to the iPad look vastly different?
Second, there're two famuos quotes:
"The obvious is always least understood."
and
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei
The problem here is that Apple invested a lot of time and thinking into designing a fantastic solution to a problem. But that doesn't mean that it is the only solution. Instead, people are now seeing the world from this point of view, and can't fathom that there is any other solution to this problem - just like before the iPad everybody thought that the Windows Tablet Design was the best solution.
Does the author really believe that the iPad design is the answer to all questions? The final? I bet there're better, more intriguing, more beautiful, and more usable designs that yet have to be discovered.
First of all, if this is the only possible way for a tablet to look, why did all the other Microsoft tablets up to the iPad look vastly different?
Second, there're two famuos quotes:
"The obvious is always least understood."
and
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei
The problem here is that Apple invested a lot of time and thinking into designing a fantastic solution to a problem. But that doesn't mean that it is the only solution. Instead, people are now seeing the world from this point of view, and can't fathom that there is any other solution to this problem - just like before the iPad everybody thought that the Windows Tablet Design was the best solution.
Does the author really believe that the iPad design is the answer to all questions? The final? I bet there're better, more intriguing, more beautiful, and more usable designs that yet have to be discovered.
Maybe, but how successful were those Microsoft tablets.
"the only possible way for a tablet to look"
He never said that, he is claiming that most of the properties Apple is disputing are the best way to design an object like this, which is a perfectly reasonable argument.
"the only possible way for a tablet to look"
He never said that, he is claiming that most of the properties Apple is disputing are the best way to design an object like this, which is a perfectly reasonable argument.
You know what they say, "Hindsight is always 20/20"
[deleted]
Yeah, I thought some of the points contradicted too. At one point he says a curved edge is better for holding, but it is "impossible" to engineer it that way due to batteries. Then he says the Sony S tablet's curve makes it unusable. hmmm....
I've never used the S tablet, but it does seem like it might be more comfortable to hold in portrait mode. I almost never use my iPad lying flat on the table and when I do it is usually an uncomfortable reading angle unless I prop it.
I've never used the S tablet, but it does seem like it might be more comfortable to hold in portrait mode. I almost never use my iPad lying flat on the table and when I do it is usually an uncomfortable reading angle unless I prop it.
His drawing of the "optimal" shape clearly shows that while the back is curved to follow the curve of the hand, the back is still symmetrical, so when the Pad is placed on the table, it lies flatly on the surface, and the front of the Pad is completely horizontal.
Two other key factors for the curved back:
- unless you look at the device edge-on right at 90 degrees, it looks much thinner than it in fact is
- when placed on the table, it gives a subtle illusion of floating.
Both contribute to a subjective "wow!" response, where other practical designs don't.
- unless you look at the device edge-on right at 90 degrees, it looks much thinner than it in fact is
- when placed on the table, it gives a subtle illusion of floating.
Both contribute to a subjective "wow!" response, where other practical designs don't.
And its easier to grab it. with flat surfieces one would be forced to push it till the edge of the surface, like when I try to pick up coins from table, PAIN!
See, to me, Samsung does have an issue here, but it's not about the "rounded rectangle" shape or the "reasonably thick black bezel": it's the fact they have both of those, like the iPad, but then also surround them with a marginal silver border.
I own both the Galaxy Tab 10.1" and an iPad 2, and I actually do get confused between the two all the time, when looking at them from above. They're about the same thickness and reasonably similar shapes, and with the same "rounded rectangle with a black bezel surrounded by a silver frame" I honestly have grabbed the wrong tablet before. To contrast, I never get confused with my HP TouchPad or my Kindle Fire (although that one is smaller).
I'd be perfectly happy if Samsung just switched to a matte black border instead, and Apple should be too: it would, at least from what I've seen, fix most of the confusion here between the two products.
I own both the Galaxy Tab 10.1" and an iPad 2, and I actually do get confused between the two all the time, when looking at them from above. They're about the same thickness and reasonably similar shapes, and with the same "rounded rectangle with a black bezel surrounded by a silver frame" I honestly have grabbed the wrong tablet before. To contrast, I never get confused with my HP TouchPad or my Kindle Fire (although that one is smaller).
I'd be perfectly happy if Samsung just switched to a matte black border instead, and Apple should be too: it would, at least from what I've seen, fix most of the confusion here between the two products.
Black bezel, marginal silver border, years before the iPad, made by Samsung: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jp...
"slate boards where disappearing gradually circa 1930": http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Schiefertafe...
Samsung's picture frame is no iPad:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-pi...
Design patents cover design, not function. As this article points out, minimalist designs are highly constrained. They wouldn't be minimalist if there were lots of other ways to do it.
Without a lengthy article explaining why, by just looking at the picture frame - I would have never known the difference.
My understanding is that this is a patent dispute, not a trademark dispute. Therefore, the fact that you confuse the two isn't really relevant.
Design patent.
Doesn't matter. Design patents are about non-branded aesthetics. (A typeface can be design-patented because coming up with a beautiful typeface is hard. In many countries, including the US, typefaces can't be copyrighted.) But trademarks are about consumer confusion, i.e. consumers accidentally buy a Samsung tablet because they think they're buying an iPad, which has a reputation.
Xuzz was commenting that he confused the tablets, which isn't relevant. It would have been relevant if he said "I really noticed how nice the Samsung looked and how little glare it had due to case design (just like Apple). Those details are subtle but non-obvious."
Here more from wikipedia for anyone interested:
> Trademarks and trade dress are used to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of a manufactured object. To get trademark protection, the trademark owner must show that the mark is not likely to be confused with other trademarks for items in the same general class. The trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they are used in commerce. Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[7] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.
I didn't know this stuff until I looked it up in response to your comment, so thanks.
[Edited in response to nitrogen. Thanks.]
Xuzz was commenting that he confused the tablets, which isn't relevant. It would have been relevant if he said "I really noticed how nice the Samsung looked and how little glare it had due to case design (just like Apple). Those details are subtle but non-obvious."
Here more from wikipedia for anyone interested:
> Trademarks and trade dress are used to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of a manufactured object. To get trademark protection, the trademark owner must show that the mark is not likely to be confused with other trademarks for items in the same general class. The trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they are used in commerce. Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[7] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.
I didn't know this stuff until I looked it up in response to your comment, so thanks.
[Edited in response to nitrogen. Thanks.]
Design patents are about functionality.
Design patents cannot cover function. That's what regular patents are for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_ut...
Design patents cannot cover function. That's what regular patents are for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_ut...
Which is one reason why I think Apple will have trouble here. Samsung only needs to show that there is a functional basis for their design decisions (rounded corners => more comfortable, black bezel => better contrast, metal band on frame => stronger, more scratch resistant, etc). and the issues of design patents and trade dress fall away.
Yea, I was lumping "aestetics" into "functionality" as opposed to trademarks, which are "informative". That was wrong terminology. I also was thinking that the readability of a typeface would be covered under a design patent, but upon reflection it would not.
Here's a nice google search you can do:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
Notice the color, shape and style of the laptops you see, especially their displays. They nearly all have black bezel, are rectangular with rounded corners. It basically has all the features you mention.
Samsung's Galaxy Tab looks as much like they ripped a display off one of their laptops as it does like an iPad. It is essentially their brand, the style of design they have applied for years across much of their range. That's one reason they happen to look more like the iPad than some of the other tablet makers.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
Notice the color, shape and style of the laptops you see, especially their displays. They nearly all have black bezel, are rectangular with rounded corners. It basically has all the features you mention.
Samsung's Galaxy Tab looks as much like they ripped a display off one of their laptops as it does like an iPad. It is essentially their brand, the style of design they have applied for years across much of their range. That's one reason they happen to look more like the iPad than some of the other tablet makers.
"Notice the color, shape and style of the laptops you see, especially their displays. They nearly all have black bezel, are rectangular with rounded corners."
Where do you think Samsung got their inspiration for those designs? What did Samsung's notebooks look like before Apple's MacBook Pro was around?
Example: http://bit.ly/ufAt6y
Where do you think Samsung got their inspiration for those designs? What did Samsung's notebooks look like before Apple's MacBook Pro was around?
Example: http://bit.ly/ufAt6y
I'm not quite sure what your point is - certainly Samsung was making laptops with the same black design theme prior to the iPad's release. I very much doubt they changed their whole line of laptops to look like the iPad.
"certainly Samsung was making laptops with the same black design theme prior to the iPad's release"
As was Apple, hence my earlier comment. Samsung hasn't just ripped off Apple's iPad design, it's been ripping off Apple's designs for years. From the MacBook Air to the iPhone to the iPod Touch, Samsung has been making faithful copies.
As was Apple, hence my earlier comment. Samsung hasn't just ripped off Apple's iPad design, it's been ripping off Apple's designs for years. From the MacBook Air to the iPhone to the iPod Touch, Samsung has been making faithful copies.
So let me understand, you think that, say, the laptops pictured here:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
are faithful copies of these ones:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=macbook+pro&tbm=isch
I just don't see how you can remotely draw this conclusion.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
are faithful copies of these ones:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=macbook+pro&tbm=isch
I just don't see how you can remotely draw this conclusion.
I didn't say that all Samsung products are Apple ripoffs. But some, especially their higher end products, are.
Like:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/galaxy-player-samsung...
http://gizmodo.com/5836128/samsungs-new-notebooks-are-super-...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-31/tech/30092522...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322194642065867.html
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/samsung-galaxy-ace-gio-fi...
Like:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/galaxy-player-samsung...
http://gizmodo.com/5836128/samsungs-new-notebooks-are-super-...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-31/tech/30092522...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322194642065867.html
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/samsung-galaxy-ace-gio-fi...
I just know from personal experience that I was having flashbacks to opening my iPad 2 compared to when I was opening my HP TouchPad.
It seems almost all manufacturers have gone to the same sort of packaging that Apple has been doing for years.
It seems almost all manufacturers have gone to the same sort of packaging that Apple has been doing for years.
Perhaps this is somewhat off topic, but what do you actually use so many tablets for? I can definitely see the appeal of a tablet, but I can't really imagine a usage scenario that requires the specific features of one of four different tablets.
Many of them were free. The Galaxy Tab 10.1" is from Google I/O, the TouchPad is from HP for development, although I bought the iPad and Kindle Fire myself. I do use them for development too, where it is useful to have a device for the platform you are developing for.
Consider cross platform development, online services, or end user support.
Our customers expect streaming video to work regardless of what bizarro device their end user walked out of a store with after getting shaken down by a spectacularly uninformed clerk. :-)
Our customers expect streaming video to work regardless of what bizarro device their end user walked out of a store with after getting shaken down by a spectacularly uninformed clerk. :-)
I would guess he is a developer who writes for multiple platforms (i.e. tablets) and wants the hardware to test on.
Apple didn't give design advice to Samsung because they're arrogant. It's because for them to argue that their patents are being infringed, they have to point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same effect.
IP laws are screwed up, but a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon out of ignorance. It's like people who get mad because a brand comes down hard on folks using their trademark. It's a legal requirement that they enforce the trademark, otherwise they lose it.
IP laws are screwed up, but a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon out of ignorance. It's like people who get mad because a brand comes down hard on folks using their trademark. It's a legal requirement that they enforce the trademark, otherwise they lose it.
>they have to point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same effect.
And this post proves that those alternative designs would make for a decidedly unappealing tablet experience. If Apple designs their products to be the bare minimum that looks good, they don't have the right to be surprised when other companies come to the same conclusion.
And this post proves that those alternative designs would make for a decidedly unappealing tablet experience. If Apple designs their products to be the bare minimum that looks good, they don't have the right to be surprised when other companies come to the same conclusion.
I don't think the onus is on Apple to suggest how Samsung could design a good alternative tablet.
Oh for frak's sake, Apple. This design came out before the iPad and looks identical to it. HN readers, you especially should know about this since it was all over the front page forever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
Here's an article from June 2009 that you could almost literally just swap the word Apple and iPad into.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
Here's an article from June 2009 that you could almost literally just swap the word Apple and iPad into.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot...
This is what the JooJoo originally looked like (2008): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o....
This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007: http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-gen-3...
On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least 1-2 years from the launch date.
This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007: http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-gen-3...
On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least 1-2 years from the launch date.
What's your point? The only difference between the the 2008 Crunchpad/JooJoo and the iPad is the color black.
I think his point is the original JooJoo design, which he provides, looked a lot less like the iPad.
But it fulfills most of the things apple is claiming that Samsung infringed upon except the color black.
No, it also looks like the border is slightly raised more like the Kindle.
This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton. Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but some shade of gray).
This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton. Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but some shade of gray).
Problem is, the iPad was designed for finger input. Raises bezels would mean you can't touch a segment of the edge of the screen without pressing hard enough to force your finger into that triangle. Any designer working with finger input would recognize that and design a screen flush with the bezel.
With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind (Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no-brainer when you think about it.
With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind (Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no-brainer when you think about it.
> "... is a no-brainer when you think about it."
Then it's not really a no brainer, is it? :)
Then it's not really a no brainer, is it? :)
Besides the sibling comment point here, its power button is placed for the right thumb in landscape mode. The icon on it tells you which way is "up".
The original iPod touch and iPhone came out in 2007, were in the making for a bunch of years, while the JooJoo was only starting as a concept in 2008.
Newsflash: Apple's design patents were filed before the iPad shipped, some as early as 2004.
on the other hand, like it is suggested to developers to not look at existing Patents, the same logic would be applied to design patents as well. If this is followed, any design can be reinvented - the more minimalistic the design is, higher would be the chances for its reinvention; this was also the central idea behind the article.
Although I am not sure about it but it appears like there have been prior art for most of the individual design concepts being pointed out here. Samsung photoframes, tablets from other parties and similar elements being icons having being used from ages before. It's the compilation of same design concepts together in Samsung Tabs as well as iPad that is creating the stir. As pointed out above, the similarity between the two appears to be more of an trademark issue than patent - if exactly and just these points are used.
Although I am not sure about it but it appears like there have been prior art for most of the individual design concepts being pointed out here. Samsung photoframes, tablets from other parties and similar elements being icons having being used from ages before. It's the compilation of same design concepts together in Samsung Tabs as well as iPad that is creating the stir. As pointed out above, the similarity between the two appears to be more of an trademark issue than patent - if exactly and just these points are used.
But how can this be? Steve Jobs himself said:
"iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices"
Clearly, JooJoo was copied from Apple.
"iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices"
Clearly, JooJoo was copied from Apple.
This article is probably falling for the cognitive bias (whose name I forget), where what actually happened looks inevitable in retrospect, but looked much more undecided in prospect.
Contrast all the other tablet PCs and so forth which have had a tendency to be sharp-cornered and bulky with asymmetric elements like buttons. The idea of having no favored orientation, for example, is innovative. Most historical tablets had one way up, and it was SVGA landscape.
Contrast all the other tablet PCs and so forth which have had a tendency to be sharp-cornered and bulky with asymmetric elements like buttons. The idea of having no favored orientation, for example, is innovative. Most historical tablets had one way up, and it was SVGA landscape.
It is called "creeping determinism" or simply hindsight bias.
http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html
Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well, and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:
the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content
This after insisting on a sufficient inactive margin, and going on to say the technology doesn't exist. The thought ends with the conclusion of a one-inch-ish black margin.
But wait: what if a tablet DID run its display area to the edge? just with the understanding among developers that any user activity within a specified margin would be ignored, either for lack of sensors or programed disuse. Bingo: Apple's odd requirements of no margin (per se) and no black is satisfied and surpassed by a superior user experience of relevant, dynamic borders; anything from automatic color matching to extending a background image to the edges or even putting useful dynamic information & imagery in the margin may/would be preferred to a space-occupying dead black zone. ...then Samsung patents the idea, leaving Apple with, well, a dead black space-occupying margin.
Methinks the term "malicious obedience" applies. Careful what you ask for...
the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content
This after insisting on a sufficient inactive margin, and going on to say the technology doesn't exist. The thought ends with the conclusion of a one-inch-ish black margin.
But wait: what if a tablet DID run its display area to the edge? just with the understanding among developers that any user activity within a specified margin would be ignored, either for lack of sensors or programed disuse. Bingo: Apple's odd requirements of no margin (per se) and no black is satisfied and surpassed by a superior user experience of relevant, dynamic borders; anything from automatic color matching to extending a background image to the edges or even putting useful dynamic information & imagery in the margin may/would be preferred to a space-occupying dead black zone. ...then Samsung patents the idea, leaving Apple with, well, a dead black space-occupying margin.
Methinks the term "malicious obedience" applies. Careful what you ask for...
In reading his description of the inevitable black border, I was thinking about Philips Ambilight[1] and how useful it would be for the border to be page color (white or black) when reading, or even to pick up the bgcolor or background from web pages.
It's not that much of a stretch to think of it working for black or white borders. Perhaps it could even be done with a type of e-ink so it wouldn't need power except when changing state from light to dark or back.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCrKVKT-b1k
It's not that much of a stretch to think of it working for black or white borders. Perhaps it could even be done with a type of e-ink so it wouldn't need power except when changing state from light to dark or back.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCrKVKT-b1k
Apple never suggested that the margin should be the same as the background colour of the content. The author of the article is stating that would be even better.
I didn't suggest Apple suggested that.
I'm noting that the author stated that color matched borders would be even better, but then abandoned the idea. I'm suggesting running with it in a manner which would benefit, instead of hinder, Samsung with an edge over Apple with a "what goes around comes around", "malicious obedience" unexpected consequence.
I'm noting that the author stated that color matched borders would be even better, but then abandoned the idea. I'm suggesting running with it in a manner which would benefit, instead of hinder, Samsung with an edge over Apple with a "what goes around comes around", "malicious obedience" unexpected consequence.
"Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well, and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:"
And then you use an example. From that sentence, quoted above, it sure does sound like you were suggesting that Apple insisted Samsung do this...
And then you use an example. From that sentence, quoted above, it sure does sound like you were suggesting that Apple insisted Samsung do this...
> since a tablet has to work with any content, the only color that is both neutral and more subdued than any other...is black.
As well as white, silver, beige, or any of the hundreds possible distinct shades of gray. Throughout 1980-90s, computer monitors were beige, and that was considered to be a classy, neutral, subdued color that works with any content, just like black is considered today. I'm not saying beige is better; I'm just saying that this whole thing that black is "the only possible color" is annoying. Apple themselves make a white iPad as well as covers in different colors, so clearly black is not the only game in town.
Oh, and I've held Sony Tablet S, and it works just fine in portrait orientation; as a matter of fact Sony's tablet is easier to hold with one hand in portrait mode than iPad is. What a bunch of whiners.
As well as white, silver, beige, or any of the hundreds possible distinct shades of gray. Throughout 1980-90s, computer monitors were beige, and that was considered to be a classy, neutral, subdued color that works with any content, just like black is considered today. I'm not saying beige is better; I'm just saying that this whole thing that black is "the only possible color" is annoying. Apple themselves make a white iPad as well as covers in different colors, so clearly black is not the only game in town.
Oh, and I've held Sony Tablet S, and it works just fine in portrait orientation; as a matter of fact Sony's tablet is easier to hold with one hand in portrait mode than iPad is. What a bunch of whiners.
They could have made the margins with a raised border, like the Kindle, and still had a black border, rectangular with rounded corners, flat back tablet that didn't look quite so much like an iPad.
They could have put their logo in a shallow etching on that margin.
The margin could be plastic, rubber, or any other material more comfortable for grip and/or better for protecting the screen.
They also could easily have the thumb margin on only 1 side, provided their software allows the user to flip the device upside down to switch between left-handed and right-handed users.
They could have put the speakers as a visible part of the top or bottom margin.
They could have the margin be a screen that does not have touch capabilities and is there simply to extend the background color all the way to the edge.
They could design a new battery that would fit around the outer rim of the tablet internally so that the middle of the device could be thinner. This would be technically difficult and expensive though.
Also, simplicity is very obvious when you see it, but before you see it you might not think of reducing things down quite that far. Case in point: Apple's device is not as simple as the one the author at baekdal.com designed because Apple's has a home button, a lock button, and volume buttons. Those are not necessary, but Apple designed them into the iPad.
They could have put their logo in a shallow etching on that margin.
The margin could be plastic, rubber, or any other material more comfortable for grip and/or better for protecting the screen.
They also could easily have the thumb margin on only 1 side, provided their software allows the user to flip the device upside down to switch between left-handed and right-handed users.
They could have put the speakers as a visible part of the top or bottom margin.
They could have the margin be a screen that does not have touch capabilities and is there simply to extend the background color all the way to the edge.
They could design a new battery that would fit around the outer rim of the tablet internally so that the middle of the device could be thinner. This would be technically difficult and expensive though.
Also, simplicity is very obvious when you see it, but before you see it you might not think of reducing things down quite that far. Case in point: Apple's device is not as simple as the one the author at baekdal.com designed because Apple's has a home button, a lock button, and volume buttons. Those are not necessary, but Apple designed them into the iPad.
I'll just leave this here for everyone saying that iPad-like designs never existed before the iPad:
http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...
http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...
What I see is an excellent example of how tablets before the iPad did not look anything like the iPad, and those after have clearly been inspired by it.
Then again, this kind of design-blindness doesn't surprise me. There are constantly people claiming that certain laptops and phones are equally well-designed as Apple products. There is clearly a large group of people who cannot see the difference.
Then again, this kind of design-blindness doesn't surprise me. There are constantly people claiming that certain laptops and phones are equally well-designed as Apple products. There is clearly a large group of people who cannot see the difference.
So basically you are calling out people for their "design blindness" while at the same time you imply that no competing electronic device has ever been designed as well as anything Apple has ever made.
I like Apple products too, but some of their competitors make awesome products from time to time.
I like Apple products too, but some of their competitors make awesome products from time to time.
Name one.
Please, this is a serious question. I would truly love to have an Android phone, an Android tablet or a Linux-compatible laptop with the same design and build quality as an Apple product.
I've pretty much given up on manufacturers that clearly don't want my money. Audio and tv electronics, no problem. Hell, I can even get beautifully designed alarm clocks, toasters and even friggin' designer humidifiers, so obviously Apple hasn't cornered the market on talented industrial designers.
Please, this is a serious question. I would truly love to have an Android phone, an Android tablet or a Linux-compatible laptop with the same design and build quality as an Apple product.
I've pretty much given up on manufacturers that clearly don't want my money. Audio and tv electronics, no problem. Hell, I can even get beautifully designed alarm clocks, toasters and even friggin' designer humidifiers, so obviously Apple hasn't cornered the market on talented industrial designers.
Before I give some examples, just remember that claiming one device has an overall better design is highly subjective. However, build quality is more easily recognized.
Asus' new Transformer Prime tablet is probably the best example of a product that matches or exceeds the build quality and design of an Apple product.
Asus' original transformer tablet, while not as thin or light as the iPad, was also an extremely well-built and stylish device. I think that I would actually prefer an iPad 2 over the original transformer, but that doesn't mean it isn't a nice piece of hardware.
Asus' new Transformer Prime tablet is probably the best example of a product that matches or exceeds the build quality and design of an Apple product.
Asus' original transformer tablet, while not as thin or light as the iPad, was also an extremely well-built and stylish device. I think that I would actually prefer an iPad 2 over the original transformer, but that doesn't mean it isn't a nice piece of hardware.
The Transformer Prime does look great.
As an aside, I can't decide whether its website is cool or not: http://eee.asus.com/en/eeepad/transformer-prime/features
As an aside, I can't decide whether its website is cool or not: http://eee.asus.com/en/eeepad/transformer-prime/features
Just two that I own(ed):
Lenovo Thinkpad X220 (Richard Sapper, and well, the build quality certainly beats every MacBook out there) HTC Desire (It fell from 20ft and survived)
Lenovo Thinkpad X220 (Richard Sapper, and well, the build quality certainly beats every MacBook out there) HTC Desire (It fell from 20ft and survived)
Many people usually looks at design from design features perspective rather than the subtleness of it. After all, they're all rectangular with bezels and screen in the middle. It can't be much different, right?
However once you start looking in details there will be a lot of differences, subtle or not. Are the bezels and screens completely flat in a single piece? What are the visual featuring of buttons? How black/white it is? etc.
However once you start looking in details there will be a lot of differences, subtle or not. Are the bezels and screens completely flat in a single piece? What are the visual featuring of buttons? How black/white it is? etc.
Your examples aren't particularly good ones; it would appear none of the post-iPad images are of a Samsung device. The point can best be illustrated using the same approach that a judge did in one of the hearings; if you hold up any of the devices prior to the iPad and an iPad and ask a typical consumer to identify which one is the iPad, there is no question as to which one they'd instantly pick. Do the same with a a Galaxy 10.1 and iPad and I'm not so sure the same individual could immediately differentiate the two, in fact Samsung's lawyer couldn't identify which was which, kind of proving Apple's point. Do the same with pretty much every other tablet on the market and there is a significant enough difference to recognise which is an iPad in an instance, as illustrated by your picture. That's not to say Apple's approach is either valid or particularly warranted, however as an industrial designer looking at both products in the knowledge that one followed the other, I find it hard to believe that Samsung haven't be substantially "influenced" by Apple's design language; to the extent that were these design degree submissions, I'd be investigating plagiarism.
Did they hide the samsung brand on the front and had it turned off? I mean most people are aware of the Apple brand and would know it's not and iPad just based on the lack of the apple logo.
If the only thing the distinguishes your product from a competitor's predecessor is the change in which logo is on it, you've got a serious issue.
Actually there is a lot more that differentiates these two devices even on a first inspection. If I asked you to tell me the brand of two tires with no branding could you tell me which is which? I don't see people talking about bridegstone and Michelin having serious issues.
On a first inspection of the device I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think they are the same. After turning it on even less. That the samsung looks are inspired by the iPad, I'm sure they would agree but I don't think they would be confused. Most people don't seem confused when buy clothes at Macy's that they are actually the designer equivalent.
On a first inspection of the device I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think they are the same. After turning it on even less. That the samsung looks are inspired by the iPad, I'm sure they would agree but I don't think they would be confused. Most people don't seem confused when buy clothes at Macy's that they are actually the designer equivalent.
What about a quick search for Star Trek tablet:
http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/...
Star Trek PADDs: https://www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+PADDs&hl=en...
Star Trek PADDs: https://www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+PADDs&hl=en...
Most of the PADDs actually do have extraneous design elements of the type suggested by Apple, though.
I think Apple definitely have a claim to revolutionising the tablet, but its much more to do with building a decent OS which is relatively simple to use, and making sure its backed up by decent hardware so it responds without a huge amount of lag. The physical design, whilst nice, was never the ground breaking element, but perhaps it is easier for the lawyers to claim patents over....
haha. Here's another version of it:
http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tablets-befor...
http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tablets-befor...
That one doesn't separate before and after, it separates industrial and consumer.
In my experience the main problem with older tablets (pre-2006) was that they had a horrible usability/cost ratio. If you had lots of cash to blow (from corporate IT budgets) on gadgets you could get a slow, awkward version of windows to browse the web and work with your powerpoint presentations. The touchscreens were finicky, power-saving features were crude, there was no 3G wireless, and multimedia capabilities weren't impressive.
The iPad wasn't feasible until those technical problems had been solved.
The iPad wasn't feasible until those technical problems had been solved.
There's plenty of use of the color black, rectangular shapes, rounded corners, and centered screens in the "before iPad" group.
In general, the tablet design language seems to have evolved over time. Here are the four pre-iPad generations of Nokia's internet tablets:
770 (2005): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/231781513/
N800 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/399708279/
N810 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/2290709295/
N900 (2009): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4706326072/
In those pictures you can also see some common tablet features like on-screen keyboards, video chat, maps, and even augmented reality.
All of the Nokia tablets came with a stylus but were mostly used with fingers. The stylus was handy for web browsing - for example, on the iPad I have to zoom HN quite a bit before I can reliably hit the up/down voting buttons.
At some point Nokia even introduced a feature where the UI elements would sense whether you're using stylus or finger, and would size themselves accordingly.
770 (2005): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/231781513/
N800 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/399708279/
N810 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/2290709295/
N900 (2009): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4706326072/
In those pictures you can also see some common tablet features like on-screen keyboards, video chat, maps, and even augmented reality.
All of the Nokia tablets came with a stylus but were mostly used with fingers. The stylus was handy for web browsing - for example, on the iPad I have to zoom HN quite a bit before I can reliably hit the up/down voting buttons.
At some point Nokia even introduced a feature where the UI elements would sense whether you're using stylus or finger, and would size themselves accordingly.
> for example, on the iPad I have to zoom HN quite a bit before I can reliably hit the up/down voting buttons.
This is because HN's design and HTML code suck. It's unreadable and inconvenient on laptops too.
This is because HN's design and HTML code suck. It's unreadable and inconvenient on laptops too.
Sure, but it isn't by far the only website with small hit areas
That's why I use this:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oieefcckcbbgniifdh...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oieefcckcbbgniifdh...
And they all run Windows with a stylus. No capacitive touch screen, no custom app-based OS. It's a qualitative difference.
Incorrect. Once capacitive screens that could detect a finger were invented, they were immediately incorporated into tablet PCs. Many tablets incorporated an active digitizer underneath a resistive one, allowing both fingers and styli. As for a custom app-based OS, look no further than any tablet running Windows Mobile, like the HTC Shift X9500.
http://pastebin.com/6NKYY3Bf
http://pastebin.com/6NKYY3Bf
Mis-pasted wrong link?
I don't think the design patent covers the software or even the hardware. It's about looks, exclusively.
You can add to that the Uren V1, the Samsung Q1, the i7210, the HTC Advantage, the Samsung Mondi, and the W1090, just for starters. Apple did absolutely nothing when it came to device innovation, they just made brilliant, easy to use software to go along with it and gave it a good price point.
Notably, all of the "before" tablets run Windows and none of the "after" ones do.
Actually, here are the tablets before and after iPad:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/08/ipad-tablet-obvious-design/
Your example doesn't go back far enough.
https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/gallery/images/2kopen.jpg
https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/gallery/images/2kopen.jpg
I'll warrant quite a few HN readers weren't born when Apple started investing in tablet computing.
If you did a chart of how typical websites looked through those years, they would similarly change towards minimalism with rounded corners. Picking one and putting it in the middle wouldn't mean much. Popular design styles change over time. This diagram doesn't prove anything.
all windows tablets needed a stylus. ever used one of those? horrible, horrible stuff.
as you get older you realize how fucking ignorant the youth is. hindsight is 20/20.
i remember the time before the iPad. before the iPhone. No one, really no one, would have predicted those devices coming from Apple. Multi-Touch? no stylus? no keyboard? unthinkable. Apple doing a phone? A phone!? no way....and here we are.
as you get older you realize how fucking ignorant the youth is. hindsight is 20/20.
i remember the time before the iPad. before the iPhone. No one, really no one, would have predicted those devices coming from Apple. Multi-Touch? no stylus? no keyboard? unthinkable. Apple doing a phone? A phone!? no way....and here we are.
What I like about the rounded corners debate is the Job's quote/story:
Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.
So, are they everywhere, or are they innovative? ;)
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.
So, are they everywhere, or are they innovative? ;)
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
I'm not convinced that rounded corners are anything more than a trend right now.
Aesthetically, many beautiful objects have sharp corners - tables, windows, and computer screens, not to mention the universal reading tablet, a.k.a. the piece of paper. Our eyes haven't had a problem staying focused inside these rectangles.
The big draw for rounded corners is comfort. But we've been using sharp rectangular folders, binders, magazines, etc. for decades without complaint.
Apple used the rounded corner to great effect, and for now it seems like the only possible design choice. But some point, someone is going to produce an elegant matboard-thin computer tablet with "sharp" corners that don't cut your fingers, and suddenly the rounded corner will seem like a childish relic of the naughts.
Aesthetically, many beautiful objects have sharp corners - tables, windows, and computer screens, not to mention the universal reading tablet, a.k.a. the piece of paper. Our eyes haven't had a problem staying focused inside these rectangles.
The big draw for rounded corners is comfort. But we've been using sharp rectangular folders, binders, magazines, etc. for decades without complaint.
Apple used the rounded corner to great effect, and for now it seems like the only possible design choice. But some point, someone is going to produce an elegant matboard-thin computer tablet with "sharp" corners that don't cut your fingers, and suddenly the rounded corner will seem like a childish relic of the naughts.
Obligatory folklore.org [1]... design is often how to incorporate what we already know and see in the digital world... regarding your comment about folders, if you do a google image search for "folder" you'll find most of them are rounded. In drawer at home, most of the folders have rounded edges where possible (ie, not at the hinge of the folder due to increased tear potential).
' Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find. '
[1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
' Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find. '
[1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
Actually, yes. The research in neuroaesthetics has shown some interesting results that point out humans' natural preference towards straight, rather than oblique lines: http://www.wfu.edu/psychology/faculty/pubs/schirillo/Article...
I do not know where the author got his "curved lines pull people in" effect.
I also feel like simple vignettes on the corners would make tablets seem much more sophisticated and intricate.
Another related URL: http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/147/ here Lebedev talks about the difference between simplicity and primitivism. This probably most closely hints at what I think is wrong with Apple's design.
I do not know where the author got his "curved lines pull people in" effect.
I also feel like simple vignettes on the corners would make tablets seem much more sophisticated and intricate.
Another related URL: http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/147/ here Lebedev talks about the difference between simplicity and primitivism. This probably most closely hints at what I think is wrong with Apple's design.
The author must think that design is adding random colors and textures, because he keeps saying things like:
"none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability"
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
"none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability"
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
Am I the only person who doesn't care? Apple produced a well designed piece of hardware. It is superior to other designs, so therefore I would like my tablets to have that design, regardless of what the actual OS is or what company built it.
On a side note, HN is usually strongly against patents. The argument is that it is all about execution and patents only retard innovation. Why is everyone up in arms when it is Apple getting copied? They innovated and now the rest of the market is absorbing that design into their products, because it is superior. This is good, for everyone.
On a side note, HN is usually strongly against patents. The argument is that it is all about execution and patents only retard innovation. Why is everyone up in arms when it is Apple getting copied? They innovated and now the rest of the market is absorbing that design into their products, because it is superior. This is good, for everyone.
Well argued rebuttal of Apple's claim about Samsung copying its tablet design. Although I disagree on color. Before the iPhone, and after, electronic devices have been all sorts of color. For example, the Kindle debuted in off white. Moto Razrs came in pink. Black is not the only logical solution.
As the Nokia Lumia 800 has shown, there is still a lot of room for design in smartphones that don't resemble the iPhone as well. Samsung has no excuse.
As the Nokia Lumia 800 has shown, there is still a lot of room for design in smartphones that don't resemble the iPhone as well. Samsung has no excuse.
There is probably a reason why most TVs come in black - it makes the colors and the picture to stand out more.
Go and take a look at the flat-screen TV section of any electronics store. All of them look pretty much alike, and actually also very much like iPad. The main difference is size, and iPad's rounded corners which are nicer to have in a device that you hold in your hands.
You can even compare Nokia's circa 2005 Internet Tablet, the 770 with an iPad. Same black color, bottom corners are rounded. Sure, it still has some more buttons and a resistive screen, but it even came with a "smart cover" (turn the hard cover around, and the magnets in it will put the device to sleep) http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4554791832/
Go and take a look at the flat-screen TV section of any electronics store. All of them look pretty much alike, and actually also very much like iPad. The main difference is size, and iPad's rounded corners which are nicer to have in a device that you hold in your hands.
You can even compare Nokia's circa 2005 Internet Tablet, the 770 with an iPad. Same black color, bottom corners are rounded. Sure, it still has some more buttons and a resistive screen, but it even came with a "smart cover" (turn the hard cover around, and the magnets in it will put the device to sleep) http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4554791832/
I've been shopping for a new large screen tellie for a few months and while what you say is generally true, ironically given the situation, Samsung TVs are noticeably different from the bulk of the competition from their ultra thinness to their silver colour. Samsung tellies are noticeably unique. When it comes to small cameras one can easily say that a camera is a 3d rectangle with a lens but if you look at Sammy's NX100/200 series you'll see they went out of their way to make the camera look unique by giving it a curved face rather than flat.
On the general topic, I remember being interested in tablets early on when they were a Microsoft thing and none of them looked like an iPad. Now almost all tablets look iPad like. Samsung in particular seemed to have gone out of their way to make a product that mimicked the look of an iPad. That being said, I'm sad that Apple has taken to the courts over these small issues. The best way to have a leading product is to make a leading product and then continually improving it so that customers want to buy it. This Apple does well. But as an Apple shareholder I'd say playing defence with court suits is a waste of $£ in my opinion but sadly Apple execs didn't ask me. On the other hand withdrawing the bulk of $8billion in parts purchasing from Samsung should have made the point alone IMO.
On the general topic, I remember being interested in tablets early on when they were a Microsoft thing and none of them looked like an iPad. Now almost all tablets look iPad like. Samsung in particular seemed to have gone out of their way to make a product that mimicked the look of an iPad. That being said, I'm sad that Apple has taken to the courts over these small issues. The best way to have a leading product is to make a leading product and then continually improving it so that customers want to buy it. This Apple does well. But as an Apple shareholder I'd say playing defence with court suits is a waste of $£ in my opinion but sadly Apple execs didn't ask me. On the other hand withdrawing the bulk of $8billion in parts purchasing from Samsung should have made the point alone IMO.
The article goes even further and makes the claim that "every TV has a black frame", implying that Samsung had no choice for their tablets, and shows a mock-up of a tablet with a red frame for comparison.
In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:
http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.js... http://www.pause.com/wp-content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-...
So designers at Samsung are perfectly aware you can make the bezel other colors.
In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:
http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.js... http://www.pause.com/wp-content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-...
So designers at Samsung are perfectly aware you can make the bezel other colors.
A strip of red is hardly a red frame.
>>Black is not the only logical solution.
Given that Apple itself has tablets shipping in white, I'd agree with this.
This article does a good job of presenting how Apple potentially came to the answer of how a tablet should look, but as noted above, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the be-all and end-all of tablet design. It just means that Apple tablets sell well enough to "force" everyone else into their vantage point.
Given that Apple itself has tablets shipping in white, I'd agree with this.
This article does a good job of presenting how Apple potentially came to the answer of how a tablet should look, but as noted above, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the be-all and end-all of tablet design. It just means that Apple tablets sell well enough to "force" everyone else into their vantage point.
Black, white, and 50% grey do seem to be the attractors.
Yeah, that point was dubious, at best.I have a white iPhone and you can, in fact, get a frickin' iPad that's not black.
Agreed -- The iPad is already available in white, and IMO looks even nicer than the black one.
The appearance of TV's have converged upon the current form of minimalism and simplicity given the current technology available--all screen, small black border. Isn't this simply what's happening in the tablet market?
Why must the courts protect consumers from potential confusion among competing tablets but not among competing but similar looking TV's?
Seems like an abuse of the legal system, which has soured me to Apple's products.
Why must the courts protect consumers from potential confusion among competing tablets but not among competing but similar looking TV's?
Seems like an abuse of the legal system, which has soured me to Apple's products.
Do you have any evidence that the European design laws were intended to protect against consumer confusion? All the evidence I have seen is that the laws were intended to protect designers of a product sold in country A from copycats in country B. That way you can start on a small scale in Denmark (say), and if it catches on, ramp up and sell throughout the EU.
Very interesting. I agree with a lot of what the author says, and I think that aspects of Apple's case against Samsung are spurious, to say the least. However, I also see one major flaw in his argument.
If this design is obvious, why then do all tablets made trior to the iPad look nothing like the iPad? (Windows Tablets, Apple Newton, Specialist Medical Tablets, Grid Tablet, etc etc)
http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-bef...
If this design is obvious, why then do all tablets made trior to the iPad look nothing like the iPad? (Windows Tablets, Apple Newton, Specialist Medical Tablets, Grid Tablet, etc etc)
http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-bef...
There are fair points here but in terms of the bezel having to be black - neither my Kindle (grey) nor the screen surround of my Macbook (brushed silver) are black and they're both completely usable.
That's amazing - this site managed to come up with CSS that prevents the font from getting bigger even when I ctrl-+ the page. Thanks for making it impossible for me to read, asshats.
It's `-webkit-text-size-adjust`. This property, at its original intent, was introduced as a way to tell Mobile Safari (and other WebKit mobile browsers) to not auto-adjust the font size on orientation change. However, there also exists `-apple-text-size-adjust` that used in several WebKit views in Apple softwares (e.g. Safari's RSS reader use `-apple-text-size-adjust` for its sidebar). At one point they deprecated `-apple` prefix for `-webkit` and the collision occurs.
This is a bug[1][2] rather than expected behavior. They can't disable it right away because Apple softwares and Qt requires this "feature". The website is likely not the one to blame here.
Update: looks like there's a new patch to fix this earlier this week.
[1]: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-May/01686...
[2]: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
[3]: https://bug-56543-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=1...
This is a bug[1][2] rather than expected behavior. They can't disable it right away because Apple softwares and Qt requires this "feature". The website is likely not the one to blame here.
Update: looks like there's a new patch to fix this earlier this week.
[1]: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-May/01686...
[2]: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
[3]: https://bug-56543-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=1...
Thanks - very informative. Why would they bother trying to prevent font re-sizing on orientation change? Surely that's done to make the text more readable.
Behavior for resizing on orientation change is kind of annoying sometimes because it adjust some font size but not all. When you create a mobile optimized site, for example, this behavior make it a lot harder to style page elements.
They are using this evil CSS style:
http://userstyles.org/styles/54719/ctrl-plus-text-zoom-fix
body { -webkit-text-size-adjust: none; }
http://userstyles.org/styles/54719/ctrl-plus-text-zoom-fix
[deleted]
Use Readable. http://readable.tastefulwords.com/
Upgrade from IE - it doesn’t resize fonts specified in pixels in text resize mode.
You wound me sir. I use Chrome on Linux. Linux user since v1.2.3!
I take it all back!
I seriously doubt they are using IE. Using Google Chrome, I can't resize text either. On Firefox, I can though.
Yes, that is because they are using a webkit CSS style that is not intended for normal websites. See my comment above for a fix.
In my opinion, the real problem is not who copied who. Reading through these comments it's clear both companies are standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases of each other).
The real problem I'm seeing in most of these comments is that there's a stark denial that somebody, anybody, could possibly design and build a tablet that's as good (or better) than Apple's flagship product because after all, isn't Apple's design by definition the best?
The real problem I'm seeing in most of these comments is that there's a stark denial that somebody, anybody, could possibly design and build a tablet that's as good (or better) than Apple's flagship product because after all, isn't Apple's design by definition the best?
Am I the only one who hates design patents?
Wait, you're telling me you created a screen with rounded edges? There's probably over a 1,000 people who conceptually designed iPod/iPad type devices since the late 90s on.
None of this is new. It's absurd to claim it's original.
Wait, you're telling me you created a screen with rounded edges? There's probably over a 1,000 people who conceptually designed iPod/iPad type devices since the late 90s on.
None of this is new. It's absurd to claim it's original.
The logic of this article is flawed and deliberately trying to deceive.
This is an article which assumes that the designer will value identical design problems as Apple. Hence they incorrectly argue that since Apple's design is simple, it's automatic to come to a similar design. It's trivial to argue that it's not only possible to solve the problems differently, but that other designers (e.g. HTC) have valued different design problems which result in a different looking tablet, that while similar(mostly for technical reasons), is different enough to escape scrutiny.
Not unlike the joke of the expert who knows where the place the chalk 'x' on the broken machine.(http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp) Apple's choice of favouring certain design problems over others is the result of their own research and how they want their users to experience their device. Valuing different problems produces different results, e.g. if Apple were adamant that the device should be held with one hand the design might approximate an artists palette or have a dedicated strap.
It's up to the lawyers from here, however Apple has been having success in demonstrating that the few differences between the devices are confusingly similar. Samsung's case is weakened by copying, not only the look and feel of the applications, but also the packaging, and even the 30 pin connector which rather than being an elegant solution it's a compatibility choice inherited from other iDevices.
To me, as a consumer, while my opinion is worthless in the matter: I feel it's a high profile knock off and something I'd expect to find in the chinese markets. Also it's association with Android damages the Android brand, allowing people to assume that Android is a rough counterfeit.
Not unlike the joke of the expert who knows where the place the chalk 'x' on the broken machine.(http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp) Apple's choice of favouring certain design problems over others is the result of their own research and how they want their users to experience their device. Valuing different problems produces different results, e.g. if Apple were adamant that the device should be held with one hand the design might approximate an artists palette or have a dedicated strap.
It's up to the lawyers from here, however Apple has been having success in demonstrating that the few differences between the devices are confusingly similar. Samsung's case is weakened by copying, not only the look and feel of the applications, but also the packaging, and even the 30 pin connector which rather than being an elegant solution it's a compatibility choice inherited from other iDevices.
To me, as a consumer, while my opinion is worthless in the matter: I feel it's a high profile knock off and something I'd expect to find in the chinese markets. Also it's association with Android damages the Android brand, allowing people to assume that Android is a rough counterfeit.
Our eyes don't "see the world as a rectangle". The reason that newspapers, etc. are rectangular has more to do with efficient space packing (and linear text, as the author mentions) than the inherent capabilities of the eye.
https://www.google.com/search?q=goldmann+visual+field&tb...
Not very rectangular. :-)
Not very rectangular. :-)
[deleted]
My favorite quote, and my motto when making anything
> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Also, that thing about the margin matching the color of the content sounds awesome.
> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Also, that thing about the margin matching the color of the content sounds awesome.
I'm a bit late to this party...
I liked the article title but the article is weak. First of all, there are many ways to create a viable tablet. Apple's approach to enumerate the challenges/problems associated with the new form factor and then to solve them not come up with an ad hoc hack and to protect their unique patentable solutions.
At the same time, other companies were creating netbooks because they were to lazy to figure out how to design a fully functional computer and cram it into a notebook form factor.
Probably one of the key breakthroughs was their realization that it didn't need to be a full computer. Seems so obvious now doesn't it? Also that they needed to augment the current state of the touch based UI. All very obvious in retrospect.
If there is prior art then it will remove some of the violations. If you are going to post stuff like this, do the necessary research on when the iPad IP was patented.
Its appalling to see companies blatantly copying better technology and then selling it. They should respect it, either license the technology, develop their own or work on something that Apple hasn't done yet and isn't in the process of doing.
I liked the article title but the article is weak. First of all, there are many ways to create a viable tablet. Apple's approach to enumerate the challenges/problems associated with the new form factor and then to solve them not come up with an ad hoc hack and to protect their unique patentable solutions.
At the same time, other companies were creating netbooks because they were to lazy to figure out how to design a fully functional computer and cram it into a notebook form factor.
Probably one of the key breakthroughs was their realization that it didn't need to be a full computer. Seems so obvious now doesn't it? Also that they needed to augment the current state of the touch based UI. All very obvious in retrospect.
If there is prior art then it will remove some of the violations. If you are going to post stuff like this, do the necessary research on when the iPad IP was patented.
Its appalling to see companies blatantly copying better technology and then selling it. They should respect it, either license the technology, develop their own or work on something that Apple hasn't done yet and isn't in the process of doing.
"Optimally speaking, the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content. That way, the margin would be there but not attract your attention. But that is not actually possible with today's technology."
What?
There are several comments here which ring with the similar, "this is the only way it could be" tone that is morally disturbing (although always pleasing to hear from the competition...).
(edit: spelling)
What?
There are several comments here which ring with the similar, "this is the only way it could be" tone that is morally disturbing (although always pleasing to hear from the competition...).
(edit: spelling)
"Thickness: The batteries make it impossible to create the optional shape for gripping. Instead, the back is shaped to be slightly thicker to fit the batteries, while keeping the edge as thin as possible.
Flat back: It simply doesn't work."
These 2 assertions are basically the same, and were made with next to no basis. Had they actually used the Sony tablet? How do they know that it "It simply doesn't work."? I haven't used the Sony tablet before, but I did use the REB2100 color ebook which is similar to the Sony design where the batteries are in one edge instead of being flat on the back. It is much easier to hold than the ipad. I will argue that a tablet with an edge heavy side like the Sony, if it isn't currently easy to hold with 2 hands for gaming or other applications due to sharp edges, can be redesigned more like the 1st gen macbook air where user can hold the heavy edge comfortably by either a single hand or both hands.
These 2 assertions are basically the same, and were made with next to no basis. Had they actually used the Sony tablet? How do they know that it "It simply doesn't work."? I haven't used the Sony tablet before, but I did use the REB2100 color ebook which is similar to the Sony design where the batteries are in one edge instead of being flat on the back. It is much easier to hold than the ipad. I will argue that a tablet with an edge heavy side like the Sony, if it isn't currently easy to hold with 2 hands for gaming or other applications due to sharp edges, can be redesigned more like the 1st gen macbook air where user can hold the heavy edge comfortably by either a single hand or both hands.
Every designer I know will tell you it take much longer and requires much more difficulty to make something complicated look very very simple.
Most peoples reaction to something designed very well is: "oh of course you do it like that, how would you do it anyway else".
But this is naive thinking, there are plenty of ways to design and most are not simple. The beauty of the iPad is that people understand it at a glance, that is incredibly profound. I think it is really unfortunate that the writer of this article took the stance that they undesigned it, simply wrong. They intelligently designed every aspect of this device which is exactly what his diagrams point out.
Apple's computers, tablets, phone, iPod, all look very unique and were certainly designed not undesigned. All of these objects are man made and inherently require design for them to take shape.
Most peoples reaction to something designed very well is: "oh of course you do it like that, how would you do it anyway else".
But this is naive thinking, there are plenty of ways to design and most are not simple. The beauty of the iPad is that people understand it at a glance, that is incredibly profound. I think it is really unfortunate that the writer of this article took the stance that they undesigned it, simply wrong. They intelligently designed every aspect of this device which is exactly what his diagrams point out.
Apple's computers, tablets, phone, iPod, all look very unique and were certainly designed not undesigned. All of these objects are man made and inherently require design for them to take shape.
I would normally give a company the benefit of the doubt, but after the SGH-i607 (Blackjack)[1] I just assume Samsung is a copy type company for design.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607
The author is not giving Apple credit for the design it deserves. Why did no other tablets look like the iPad before the iPad then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
I don't remember any of the Windows based tablets looking this way. Or even the Newton, not even the Dynabook looked like the iPad.
Edit: And the author overlooks the fact that multi orientation is a unique design feature onto itself.
I don't remember any of the Windows based tablets looking this way. Or even the Newton, not even the Dynabook looked like the iPad.
Edit: And the author overlooks the fact that multi orientation is a unique design feature onto itself.
It is not so simple. Tablet computers before the iPad did not look anything like the iPad:
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-th...
in hindsight, it seems like the only completely obvious way to design a tablet, but that fact in itself is the mark of great design.
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-th...
in hindsight, it seems like the only completely obvious way to design a tablet, but that fact in itself is the mark of great design.
Some tablet computers before the iPad looked very differently. Others... not so much.
That picture, which is shown much too often, is a perfect illustration only of selection bias.
Going through past tablets and choosing the ones that were not black rectangles proves nothing except that some tablets did not look like the ipad. Some tablets now also don't look like the ipad.
Going through past tablets and choosing the ones that were not black rectangles proves nothing except that some tablets did not look like the ipad. Some tablets now also don't look like the ipad.
It's also a perfect illustration of why this and Samsung's arguments to the contrary are invalid.
Perhaps the articles author should employ a morphological chart to properly investigate the many different design solutions available to Samsung and everybody else before declaring Apple's design the definitive one: http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart
The author seems to argue that only unsuccessful design is entitled to protection.
No, just that only non-obvious design should be entitled to protection. A thumb-width, neutrally colored bezel, a rectangle screen, and non-lethal corners are obvious. Apple's suggestions are to specifically engineer a device that looks unlike an Apple product, rather than designing a device in the obvious way.
Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.
Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.
>>Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.
I don't understand this point of view at all. It's seems loaded and emotive. I'll ask you this; why can other hardware manufacturers make tablet devices that are aesthetically appealing to consumers that aren't using a near identical visual language.
I don't understand this point of view at all. It's seems loaded and emotive. I'll ask you this; why can other hardware manufacturers make tablet devices that are aesthetically appealing to consumers that aren't using a near identical visual language.
Can you link me to one? I'm having a hard time finding a tablet that does not look like an iPad. The HP Touchpad, the Playbook, Motorola Xoom, even the Kindle Fire looks like a 7" iPad. The Nook Tablet is about the only one, and it's just a silver iPad with a notch cut out of the corner for some reason. Eee Transformer? iPad with an optional keyboard.
The Acer Iconia has a silver lining around the bezel. That and the Nook are about as "different" as I'm seeing. They're all 7" or 10" TV screens. No one is screaming that their TVs or monitors all look the same, but they're all black boxes with a screen.
The Acer Iconia has a silver lining around the bezel. That and the Nook are about as "different" as I'm seeing. They're all 7" or 10" TV screens. No one is screaming that their TVs or monitors all look the same, but they're all black boxes with a screen.
Sure; any of these at the bottom of the picture - http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...
The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered. I pointed out the Nook Tablet as one exception. The rest (beyond the clamshell designs) all look similar to the iPad. Basically you're saying companies should have to design their tablets with two screens because a one screen black box is too similar to the iPad?
No. I am saying that all the examples and the ones that you mention, perhaps except the HP TouchPad, are different enough not to be plagiarising from Apple, unlike Samsung's devices, which are flagrant rip offs of Apple design's for a tablet. For instance the radius of the corner could reasonably be anything between <5mm - >25mm, changing the aesthetic substantially. The bezel could have a different finish; acid etched for instance, it could be a different size or had an inlaid trim. Using a morphological chart you could discover many more options http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart, some good, some of them not so good. Quite simple really. Of course you are entitled to disagree with my opinion, however to claim that other devices merely "all look similar to the iPad" is not really understanding what design is, just like the articles author. 'Design obviousness' to me is an indication of a successful design. It is also a bias of hindsight. It's tantamount to stating that anyone can produce an Andy Warhol piece.
>>The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered.
The article is neither factual or authoritative. It is opinion and supposition.
>>The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered.
The article is neither factual or authoritative. It is opinion and supposition.
What about design the success of which makes it obvious only in retrospect?
I thought that was precisely what IP was there to protect. If the design becomes successful but is still not obvious to competitors, would IP be needed to protect it?
For the record I don't support IP.
For the record I don't support IP.
Considering there were devices that looked like the iPad before the iPad was released, I don't think that's the case here.
[deleted]
Three of my favorite design quotes:
"Best design is least design."
"Best design is invisible."
"Give less a chance."
"Best design is least design."
"Best design is invisible."
"Give less a chance."
http://tenprinciplesofgooddesign.com/ from Dieter Rams. Jonathan Ive's and by extension Apple's approach to design expressed in 10 simple statements.
I didn't just read the article, I unread it.
Design by simplification is hard. And surprisingly not intuitive. Look at a Picasso and realize it took hundreds of years of western art before something so "simple" could be appreciated.
It's made even harder because engineers and business managers often insist on extra functionality or visual clutter.
(Often there are good usability or marketing reasons for this, but too often it's simply the desire to be "part of the process".)
Now you do give up something with simplicity. In art you force the user to supply context and sometimes even interpretation; in software design this can actually be a plus. One of the things you give up in software, and hardware, design is novelty. When you boil a solution down to its essence there's often not room for differentiation. You have to change either the constraints, smaller batteries, for example, or change user expectations.
This makes competing against something so "undesigned" very difficult without trying to completely re-conceptualize a product.
This is what Apple did with the iPhone. Now it helped them in that the basic "smart phone" was so utterly, indescribably awful before they entered the market. I imagine the process Jobs went through involved looking at the current market and deciding that there was no way to fix any of that. So they started from scratch. A big deal was realizing that they weren't simply making a phone with some connectivity features and a bigger display, but they were designing a small, portable communication platform that needed to have absolutely minimal impact on, well, portability. They looked at the problem and built just enough to solve the basics and provide a minimal amount of hardware and software to support the ideas. Anything added needs to have minimal impact on the basics.
Now they didn't get it perfect, by any means. But they did a good, credible job. Good enough that if you are a competitor you are going to have a hard time solving the same problems, with the same constraints, and not come up with something that a layman would have a hard time distinguishing from the original.
Now I'm against software patents myself, and think hardware patents should be much more difficult to get and keep. But legal issues aside, if you want to compete against the iPhone and iPad, and not seem like an also-ran, you are going to have to come up with a different interaction paradigm. A device built into spectacles with a heads up display and vision tracking? Something totally audio based; Siri anyone? I can see the attraction to a phone with no display or buttons at all.
I don't know the solution(s) myself, this is not an area I'm interested in developing in.
But I'll probably want to own whatever the next "Steve Jobs" comes up with. A Samsung iPhone/iPad knockoff? Not so much...
It's made even harder because engineers and business managers often insist on extra functionality or visual clutter.
(Often there are good usability or marketing reasons for this, but too often it's simply the desire to be "part of the process".)
Now you do give up something with simplicity. In art you force the user to supply context and sometimes even interpretation; in software design this can actually be a plus. One of the things you give up in software, and hardware, design is novelty. When you boil a solution down to its essence there's often not room for differentiation. You have to change either the constraints, smaller batteries, for example, or change user expectations.
This makes competing against something so "undesigned" very difficult without trying to completely re-conceptualize a product.
This is what Apple did with the iPhone. Now it helped them in that the basic "smart phone" was so utterly, indescribably awful before they entered the market. I imagine the process Jobs went through involved looking at the current market and deciding that there was no way to fix any of that. So they started from scratch. A big deal was realizing that they weren't simply making a phone with some connectivity features and a bigger display, but they were designing a small, portable communication platform that needed to have absolutely minimal impact on, well, portability. They looked at the problem and built just enough to solve the basics and provide a minimal amount of hardware and software to support the ideas. Anything added needs to have minimal impact on the basics.
Now they didn't get it perfect, by any means. But they did a good, credible job. Good enough that if you are a competitor you are going to have a hard time solving the same problems, with the same constraints, and not come up with something that a layman would have a hard time distinguishing from the original.
Now I'm against software patents myself, and think hardware patents should be much more difficult to get and keep. But legal issues aside, if you want to compete against the iPhone and iPad, and not seem like an also-ran, you are going to have to come up with a different interaction paradigm. A device built into spectacles with a heads up display and vision tracking? Something totally audio based; Siri anyone? I can see the attraction to a phone with no display or buttons at all.
I don't know the solution(s) myself, this is not an area I'm interested in developing in.
But I'll probably want to own whatever the next "Steve Jobs" comes up with. A Samsung iPhone/iPad knockoff? Not so much...
About the corners, It's not just about comfort. When CNC machines cut surfaces, the corners are naturally rounded, that's the main reason tablets, smartphones and pretty much everything coming out of a factory has rounded edges.
> Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content itself.
IANAD, but everything I have read about design indicates that this is precisely what design is. So, the premise that Apple "undesigned" the iPad is a shaky one. That doesn't make Apple's list of demands any less silly, though.
IANAD, but everything I have read about design indicates that this is precisely what design is. So, the premise that Apple "undesigned" the iPad is a shaky one. That doesn't make Apple's list of demands any less silly, though.
This guy's argument seems to lead to, "Apple has designed the ultimate possible tablet shape," which I don't believe in the least. Samsung obviously copied their design concept, and didn't even try to improve on it. How about a rubberized, textured back, like the Kobo ebook reader?
I agree with some of the author's argument but he seems to be missing the logical fallacy in the use of the word "undesign".
Thats equivalent to arguing that a flat screen tv is obtained by "undesigning" a TV from the 90's and thus there is no real innovation involved!Simlarly a laptop then was made by "undesigning" a desktop computer!
Yes an iPad is what a tablet should look and feel like but it is so obvious because Apple pointed these seemingly "simple" things out and they absolutely deserve credit for it.
If you go ahead and "undesign" a Boeing 747 airliner and make it work as efficient and smooth as a bird shouldnt you deserve credit for it?
Thats equivalent to arguing that a flat screen tv is obtained by "undesigning" a TV from the 90's and thus there is no real innovation involved!Simlarly a laptop then was made by "undesigning" a desktop computer!
Yes an iPad is what a tablet should look and feel like but it is so obvious because Apple pointed these seemingly "simple" things out and they absolutely deserve credit for it.
If you go ahead and "undesign" a Boeing 747 airliner and make it work as efficient and smooth as a bird shouldnt you deserve credit for it?
I consider Apple's design aesthetic to be the "mercedes" of phones, laptops, etc.
I've never mistaken another car for a mercedes (I'm thinking of the e-class), nor have I ever mistaken another laptop for a macbook, nor have I ever mistaken another mp3 player for an ipad.
i mistook someone using a samsung tablet for them using an ipad - I thought that's what it was, looking at them interacting with it fairly closely, etc.
I disagree with the argument in this article and elsewhere. The fact is, you could make basically the exact same arguments for why things HAVE to look like a MacBook or an iMac. But I've never seen anyone who cares about APPLE products in particular, mistake another computer for a MacBook or another computer for an iMac - have you?
When an expert does a double-take two minutes in and realizes that's not the Apple product it looks exactly like, then a line has been crossed.
you guys can mod me down, doesn't change this fact.
I've never mistaken another car for a mercedes (I'm thinking of the e-class), nor have I ever mistaken another laptop for a macbook, nor have I ever mistaken another mp3 player for an ipad.
i mistook someone using a samsung tablet for them using an ipad - I thought that's what it was, looking at them interacting with it fairly closely, etc.
I disagree with the argument in this article and elsewhere. The fact is, you could make basically the exact same arguments for why things HAVE to look like a MacBook or an iMac. But I've never seen anyone who cares about APPLE products in particular, mistake another computer for a MacBook or another computer for an iMac - have you?
When an expert does a double-take two minutes in and realizes that's not the Apple product it looks exactly like, then a line has been crossed.
you guys can mod me down, doesn't change this fact.
Mercedes luxurious design of cars is nothing like Apple's design of tech.
Apple is BMW of computers and BMW is Apple of cars - just look at this and honestly tell me this is beautiful and simple:
http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_...
Compare that to the 5er sedan of same year (if we go back to e60 of mid 2003 things look even worse for Mercs)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw...
I'm not even talking about A6
http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/1/P/1/09a6_interior.jpg
This is all personal I suppose, but I take issue when people relate Apple with Mercedes, just not the same level of attention to details between the two.
Apple is BMW of computers and BMW is Apple of cars - just look at this and honestly tell me this is beautiful and simple:
http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_...
Compare that to the 5er sedan of same year (if we go back to e60 of mid 2003 things look even worse for Mercs)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw...
I'm not even talking about A6
http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/1/P/1/09a6_interior.jpg
This is all personal I suppose, but I take issue when people relate Apple with Mercedes, just not the same level of attention to details between the two.
Mercedes is such a generic luxury model in many of their cars that it's easy to overlook them as generi-sedans for the most part.
Upvoted primarily for the Shearer's potato chip plug.
[deleted]
This would be a lot more believable if all of the Tablets that came before the iPad also looked identical to the iPad and Samsung devices.
They didn't: http://twitpic.com/67ykpa
They didn't: http://twitpic.com/67ykpa
Some did: http://www.2imgs.com/6c941c36e5
The HP Slate didn't come before the iPad, in fact it came to market 10 months later. Neither did the Joojoo, unless you think Apple developed the iPad in one year's time.
This doesn't look like an iPad to me: http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hp-50...
This doesn't look like an iPad to me: http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hp-50...
The HP Slate was shown three weeks before the iPad, so it couldn't be a copy (although at that point the iPhone aesthetic was well known).
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/06/the-hp-slate/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/06/the-hp-slate/
Why, of all the devices on earth, does Samsung's tablet exactly mimic Apple's USB connector?
I've got a Galaxy Tab sitting right next to me, here. The design isn't just similar, the dimensions are nearly identical.
Explain it to me. Please. If you can offer a compelling case for why Samsung isn't a shameless industrial design thief that can also account for their USB connector, I will be very impressed. It is, to me, the smoking gun. Don't tell me it's the only way to design a low-profile USB connector. It's the only way when Apple does it – everyone else has been doing fine with USB mini and micro.
Samsung: http://i.imgur.com/eyqGw.jpg
Apple: http://i.imgur.com/nh0eI.jpg
Everyone else: http://i.imgur.com/vpPhZ.jpg
Oh, and for thoroughness, how Amazon designed a beautiful USB micro cable that looked nothing at all like Apple's: http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement-Display-Generation-...
Maybe Apple had a time machine and traveled into the future, stealing Samsung's wholly original USB cable design?